Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2013

12241258 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KATHERINE JOHNSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-003599
Application 12/241,258
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JILL D. HILL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003599
Application 12/241,258

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Turtzo (US 6,254,554 B1; iss. Jul. 3, 2001) and Miller (US 4,991,573;
iss. Feb. 12, 1991).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is the only rejected
independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A crevice collar comprising:
a strip of cushion material, having a length, first and
second ends, a generally flat lower surface, and a ridged upper
surface, with a pair of oppositely disposed sidewalls each
extending from the flat lower surface inwardly and upwardly to
said ridged upper surface;
a cloth like stockinette covering surrounding the entire
strip of cushion material; and
a roll up stretch band attached to at least one of said first
and second ends.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Turtzo teaches each of the features found in
claim 1 including the ridged upper surface and sidewalls extending upwardly
to the ridged upper surface, but fails to teach that the sidewalls extend
inwardly to the ridged upper surface. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that
Miller teaches a compression wrap including a covered foam having an
upper ridged surface with sidewalls extending upwardly and inwardly to the

1 The rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2011-003599
Application 12/241,258

3
ridged upper surface and reasons that it would have been obvious to include
a cushion having inwardly extending sidewalls in Turtzo to enhance and
accommodate accurate body contour when applying the compression device
to a patient. Ans. 4-5.
Appellant argues that Turtzo has nothing to do with accommodating
crevices formed by swollen skin and that using Turtzo’s sleeve for
Appellant’s purpose would defeat Appellant’s objective. App. Br. 5.
Appellant further argues that Miller does not teach “upwardly and inwardly
cushion material sidewalls terminating in a ridge that fits within a crevice.”
Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant explains that Miller has nothing to do with the
treatment of Lymphedema and that Figure 3 of Miller depicts a belt having
pads 28 with flat tops that would not fit within formed crevices caused by
Lymphedema. App. Br. 5. Appellant contends that claim 1 “require[s] with
specificity the configuration of the cushion strip so that it fits within the
crevice of the skin folds which is an important feature of the invention”
(App. Br. 6) and that neither Turtzo nor Miller addresses Appellant’s
problem of accommodating skin crevices or folds during compression
treatment of Lymphedema (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant’s arguments are not convincing because the arguments are
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 is not defined in a
manner that requires “accommodating crevices formed by swollen skin,” “a
ridge that fits within a crevice,” or any form of treatment of Lymphedema.
Appellant’s contention that claim 1 “require[s] with specificity” any of these
features is simply incorrect.
Appellant further contends that “[t]here… is no compression
bandage” disclosed by the references. App. Br. 5. Assuming Appellant is
Appeal 2011-003599
Application 12/241,258

4
referring to the claimed “stretch band,” the Examiner finds that Turtzo
teaches a stretch band 24. Ans. 3. Appellant offers no explanation as to
why this finding is incorrect. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise
us of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-7
depend from claim 1 and are not argued separately. See App. Br. 3-7.
Therefore, claims 2-7 fall with claim 1.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls